2019金融时报全球MBA排名 (Financial Times Global MBA Ranking 2019)

时间：2019-04-17 13:08:00 来源：作者：

2019 年 1 月 28 日，英国《金融时报》（Financial Times，以下简称“FT”）发布了 2019 年全球 MBA 百强排行榜。

斯坦福大学商学院（Stanford Graduate School of Business）、哈佛商学院（Harvard Business School）、欧洲工商管理学院（Insead）、宾夕法尼亚大学沃顿商学院（University of Pennsylvania: Wharton）和中欧国际工商学院（Ceibs）位列前五，其中，中欧国际工商学院首次跻身全球前五。

此次排名，中国共有 6 所商学院入选百强排行榜，分别是第 5 名中欧国际工商学院（Ceibs）、第 18 名香港科技大学工商管理学院（HKUST Business School）、第 34 名复旦大学管理学院（Fudan University School of Management）、第 41 名香港大学（University of Hong Kong）、第 51 名上海交通大学安泰经济与管理学院（Shanghai Jiao Tong University: Antai）和第 57 名香港中文大学商学院（CUHK Business School）。

在 FT 全球 MBA 排名标准的众多权重中，占比最大的两个权重分别是：毕业生三年后的平均薪资（占比 20%）和攻读 MBA 前后的薪资涨幅（占比 20%）。由此可见，FT 排名对 MBA 毕业后的薪资情况还是比较看重的。

与往年不同的是，今年 FT 增加了一项新的排名标准——企业社会责任排名（Corporate Social Responsibility Rank，简称 “CSR Rank”），即商学院传授企业社会责任、伦理道德、社会和环境问题等在其核心课程教学中所占的课时比例。此项标准系首次采纳使用，权重占到整个排名的 3%。

2019 年度 FT 全球 MBA 百强排行榜单，即刻为大家揭晓排名结果。

Rank 2019	Rank 2018	3 Yr Avg.	School Name	Country
1	1	1	Stanford Graduate School of Business	US
2	5	4	Harvard Business School	US
3	2	2	Insead	FR / SG
4	3	3	University of Pennsylvania: Wharton	US
5	8	8	Ceibs	China
6	4	5	London Business School	UK
7	6	7	University of Chicago: Booth	US
8	9	10	MIT: Sloan	US
9	7	8	Columbia Business School	US
10	10	11	University of California at Berkeley: Haas	US
11	15	14	Yale School of Management	US
12	11	11	Iese Business School	Spain
13	27	24	University of Oxford: Saïd	UK
14	12	13	Northwestern University: Kellogg	US
15	16	16	Dartmouth College: Tuck	US
16	13	11	University of Cambridge: Judge	UK
17	18	20	National University of Singapore Business School	Singapore
18	14	16	HKUST Business School	China
19	21	20	HEC Paris	France
19	19	21	Duke University: Fuqua	US
21	20	19	Esade Business School	Spain
22	24	22	IMD Business School	Switzerland
23	32	30	University of Virginia: Darden	US
24	28	26	Indian School of Business	India
25	23	22	New York University: Stern	US
26	25	28	UCLA: Anderson	US
27	17	24	Cornell University: Johnson	US
28	26	26	University of Michigan: Ross	US
29	30	33	Georgetown University: McDonough	US
30	22	25	Nanyang Business School, NTU Singapore	Singapore
31	-	-	IE Business School	Spain
31	29	27	SDA Bocconi	Italy
33	35	39	Indian Institute of Management Bangalore	India
34	42	-	Fudan University School of Management	China
35	40	38	Carnegie Mellon: Tepper	US
36	41	40	Warwick Business School	UK
37	44	42	University of Texas at Austin: McCombs	US
38	47	45	Emory University: Goizueta	US
39	58	-	University of Florida: Warrington	US
39	51	45	Imperial College Business School	UK
41	33	38	University of Hong Kong	China
42	51	49	Sungkyunkwan University GSB	South Korea
43	49	-	Singapore Management University: Lee Kong Chian	Singapore
43	57	49	Indiana University: Kelley	US
43	64	61	Durham University Business School	UK
46	59	51	University of Southern California: Marshall	US
47	31	36	Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad	India
48	64	58	University of California at Irvine: Merage	US
49	48	46	University of Washington: Foster	US
49	78	74	Indian Institute of Management Calcutta	India
51	34	40	Shanghai Jiao Tong University: Antai	China
52	37	44	University of North Carolina: Kenan-Flagler	US
52	73	68	Vanderbilt University: Owen	US
54	50	57	Washington University: Olin	US
55	37	41	Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University	Netherlands
56	45	55	Rice University: Jones	US
57	43	45	CUHK Business School	China
58	77	65	University of Notre Dame: Mendoza	US
59	36	42	Alliance Manchester Business School	UK
60	54	58	Georgia Institute of Technology: Scheller	US
61	66	68	Melbourne Business School	Australia
62	51	57	Arizona State University: Carey	US
63	75	76	Pennsylvania State University: Smeal	US
64	46	49	City, University of London: Cass	UK
65	72	65	Michigan State University: Broad	US
66	81	78	Babson College: Olin	US
67	67	71	Boston College: Carroll	US
68	86	79	Boston University: Questrom	US
69	60	63	University of St Gallen	Switzerland
70	63	62	AGSM at UNSW Business School	Australia
71	94	-	WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management	Germany
72	55	60	University of Maryland: Smith	US
73	82	80	University of Pittsburgh: Katz	US
74	-	-	Macquarie Graduate School of Management	Australia
75	55	66	Purdue University: Krannert	US
76	61	63	Cranfield School of Management	UK
77	61	64	Mannheim Business School	Germany
78	68	70	Brigham Young University: Marriott	US
79	88	79	ESMT Berlin	Germany
80	99	-	EMLyon Business School	France
81	71	72	Wisconsin School of Business	US
81	85	85	University of Minnesota: Carlson	US
83	83	81	University of Rochester: Simon	US
84	68	72	Ohio State University: Fisher	US
85	86	79	University of Toronto: Rotman	Canada
86	80	79	The Lisbon MBA	Portugal
87	78	-	McGill University: Desautels	Canada
87	73	84	University of Edinburgh Business School	UK
89	94	84	University College Dublin: Smurfit	Ireland
90	-	-	George Washington University	US
91	70	68	Lancaster University Management School	UK
92	91	-	SMU: Cox	US
93	96	-	Essec Business School	France
94	90	93	Western University: Ivey	Canada
95	-	-	Fordham University: Gabelli	US
96	-	-	Incae Business School	Costa Rica / Nicaragua
96	93	94	University of Texas at Dallas: Jindal	US
98	-	-	Grenoble Ecole de Management	France
99	-	-	Texas A & M University: Mays	US
100	-	-	William & Mary: Mason	US

Table Note

Footnotes: * KPMG reported on the results of obtaining evidence and applying specified audit procedures relating to selected survey data provided for the Financial Times 2019 MBA ranking for selected business schools. Enquiries about the assurance process can be made by contacting Lori Huber of KPMG at [email]lahuber@kpmg.ca[/email]. The specified audit procedures were carried out between November and December 2018. The audit date published denotes the survey for which the specified audit precedures were conducted.

**These schools run additional courses for MBA students for which additional language skills are required. Although the headline ranking figures show changes in the data year to year, the pattern of clustering among the schools is equally significant. Some 200 points separate the top programme, Stanford, from the school ranked number 100. The top 14 participants, down to Northwestern University: Kellogg, form the top group of MBA providers. The second group, headed by Dartmouth College: Tuck, spans schools ranked 15 to 38. Differences between schools are relatively small within this group. The 51 schools within the third group headed by Imperial College Business School, rank joint 39th, are similarly close together. The remaining 11 schools headed by George Washington University make up the fourth group.

排名方法指标

This ranking features the world’s best 100 full-time MBA programmes. A total of 150 schools took part in the 2019 edition. All participating schools meet the FT’s entry criteria, including being accredited by Equis or the AACSB.

The FT surveys alumni three years after completing their MBA. For schools to enter the ranking calculations, the FT requires that a minimum of 20 per cent of alumni reply to the survey, with at least 20 fully completed responses. About 8,000 from the class of 2015 completed our survey — a response rate of 38 per cent.

The ranking has 20 different criteria. Alumni responses inform eight criteria that together contribute 61 per cent of its weight. Eleven criteria are calculated from school data, accounting for 29 per cent of the ranking. KPMG audits a number of schools every year. The remaining criterion, the research rank, counts for 10 per cent.

Alumni-informed criteria are based on data collected over three years. Responses from the 2018 survey carry 50 per cent of total weight and those from 2018 and 2017, 25 per cent each. If only two years of data are available, the weighting is split 60:40 if data are from 2019 and 2018, or 70:30 if they are from 2019 and 2017. For salary figures, the weighting is 50:50 for two years’ data.

The first two alumni criteria are average income three years after graduation and salary increase compared with pre-MBA salary, both weighted at 20 per cent. For the latter, half of the weight applies to the absolute increase and half to the percentage rise (published). Current salaries are converted to US dollars using October 2018 International Monetary Fund purchasing power parity rates.

The salaries of non-profit and public sector workers and full-time students are removed, as are the highest and lowest salaries from each school, to calculate a normalised average. Finally, salaries are weighted to reflect differences between different sectors.

“Value for money” for each MBA is calculated by dividing its average alumni salary three years after graduation by the total cost, including tuition, lost salary, opportunity cost and other expenses. Any financial help given to alumni is subtracted from the total.

The FT also collects information from schools on their current faculty, newly enrolled students and the latest graduating class. School criteria include the diversity of staff, board members and students by gender, nationality and the MBA’s international reach. For gender criteria, schools with a 50:50 composition score highest.

The research rank is based on the number of articles by full-time faculty in 50 internationally recognised academic and practitioner journals. The rank combines the number of publications from January 2016 to October 2018, with the number weighted relative to faculty size.

The FT has removed the PhD graduates category from the criteria and replaced it with a new criterion: Corporate Social Responsibility. It is based on the proportion of teaching hours from core courses dedicated to CSR, ethics, social and environmental issues. It carries a weight of three per cent and additional weightings have been placed elsewhere.

The FT Global MBA ranking is a relative listing. Schools are ranked against each other by calculating a Z-score for each criterion. The Z-score is a statistic that shows where a score lies in relation to the mean. These scores are then weighted as outlined in the ranking key and added together for a final score.

After removing schools that did not meet the response rate threshold from the alumni survey, a first version is calculated using all remaining schools. The school at the bottom is removed and a second version is calculated and so on until we reach the top 100. The top 100 schools are ranked accordingly to produce the 2019 list

Judith Pizer of Jeff Head Associates acted as the FT’s database consultant. The FT research rank was calculated using Clarivate Analytics data from the Web of Science, an abstract and citation database of research literature.

Key

Salary today: average alumnus salary three years after graduation, US$ PPP equivalent (see methodology). This figure is not used in the ranking.†

Weighted salary (20): average alumnus salary three years after graduation, US$ PPP equivalent (see methodology), adjusted for variations between sectors.†

Salary increase (20): average difference in alumni salary from before the MBA to now. Half of this figure is calculated according to the absolute salary increase and half according to the percentage increase relative to pre-MBA salary.

Value for money (3): calculated using salary today, course length, tuition and other costs, including lost income during the MBA.†

Career progress (3): calculated according to changes in the level of seniority and the size of company alumni work in now, compared with before their MBA.†

Aims achieved (3): the extent to which alumni fulfilled their stated goals or reasons for doing an MBA.†

Careers service (3): effectiveness of the school careers service in terms of career counselling, personal development, networking events, internship search and recruitment, as rated by their alumni.†

Employed at three months (2): percentage of the most recent graduating class who had found employment or accepted a job offer within three months of completing their studies. The figure in brackets is the percentage of the class for which the school was able to provide employment data and is used to calculate the school’s final score in this category.*

Alumni recommend (3): calculated according to selection by alumni of three schools from which they would recruit MBA graduates.†

Female faculty (2): percentage of female faculty.

Female students (2): percentage of female students on the full-time MBA.

Women on board (1): percentage of female members on the school’s advisory board.

International faculty (4): calculated according to the diversity of faculty by citizenship and the percentage whose nationality differs from their country of employment — the figure published in the table. ‡

International students (4): calculated according to the diversity of current MBA students by citizenship and the percentage whose nationality differs from the country in which they study — the figure in the table. ‡

International board (2): percentage of the board whose citizenship differs from the country in which the school is based.

International mobility (6): based on alumni citizenship and the countries where they worked before their MBA, on graduation and three years after.

International course experience (3): calculated on whether the most recent graduating class completed exchanges, research projects, study tours and company internships in countries other than where the school is based.*

Languages (1): number of extra languages required on graduation.*

Faculty with doctorates (5): percentage of full-time faculty with a doctoral degree.

FT research rank (10): calculated according to the number of articles published by current full-time faculty members in 50 selected academic and practitioner journals between January 2016 and October 2018. The FT50 rank combines the absolute number of publications with the number weighted relative to the faculty’s size.

Corporate social responsibility rank (3): proportion of teaching hours from core courses dedicated to CSR, ethics, social and environmental issues.

Schools with a 50:50 (male/female) composition receive the highest possible score in the three gender-related criteria.

† Includes data for the class of 2015 and one or two preceding classes where available.

* Graduated between July 2017 and June 2018.

‡ While we recognise the distinction between Chinese and Taiwanese scholars and students, within China no such distinction may have been observed when recording diversity.

来顶一下

返回首页